Republican Kurt B. Fryar, NC District Court, District 6, Seat 2
Career: Fryar has 24 years practicing law in North Carolina, handling civil, criminal, real estate, and estate planning matters.
Education: Fryar graduated from UNCW, and later earned his law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law.
Interview responses have been edited for brevity.
For those who have never met you and don't know what you do, please introduce yourself, tell us what you’re running for, and why you think you deserve the people’s vote.
My name is Kurt Fryar. I'm a candidate for District Court judge for the sixth judicial district composed of New Hanover and Pender counties.
I have practiced law here in town for 24 years, and I've practiced law in the district courts that whole time. I've also litigated cases in about every forum our state court offers, from hearings before the Clerk of Superior Court to appeals before the North Carolina Supreme Court.
I've been a solo practitioner for the past 20 years. I've done other things than litigate cases: I've drawn wills, I've administered decedents' estates, and I've handled real estate transactions.
I've got a lot of experience that I'd bring to the bench if I was elected.
Over the years, I've realized it's crucial for a judge to know the law, to treat all people with respect, and to make timely decisions.
I also grew up in Wilmington. I attended New Hanover County Schools. I graduated from UNCW and UNC School of Law.
I'm extremely familiar with New Hanover and Pender County, as well as North Carolina. I'm qualified to sit on the bench.
What do you think qualifies you to take this role beyond your law degree?
I started out at a firm when I was 27, right out of law school, and I've been doing this for 24 years.
I used to be the youngest attorney in town, the youngest attorney in my firm, and now I'm sort of turning into the oldest attorney in the courtroom. I've been at this a while.
I know about the law, just from litigating cases and having to look up material for clients and things like that.
I've seen judges make mistakes before, and it can be costly. It can be very time-consuming for my clients, and it is just not a good position to be in.
I respect people's time, and I do my best. You know, if I'm elected, I certainly would respect New Hanover and Pender County citizens' time.
When was the last time you had to make a difficult decision on a certain legal or moral issue? How did you handle it?
Well, I think that happens every day. Usually, when you wake up.
I handle real estate transactions; I have a lot of money coming in and out of my trust account. I don't skimp on it.
Other than that, you know, every time you litigate a case, you have to make a decision.
Attorneys shouldn't lie to the court. You know, there's something called 'candor to the tribunal,' that's very important. It usually doesn't really cross my mind to make a bad decision.
I mean, that's not in my thought process. It's easy to do the right thing. Life gets difficult when you do the wrong thing.
What is your philosophy on sentencing, within the constraints set by structured sentencing?
Well, district court judges preside over misdemeanors and structured sentencing, obviously judges have to follow that.
But you know, if a judge, when sentencing a defendant, he should take into consideration the public safety, and also the defendant's safety when doing that, and then weigh that against any treatment alternatives, or weigh that against the possibility of the offender reoffending, or even the offender going out and overdosing because it happens a lot.
When a district court judge sets a bond for a defendant, they need to weigh the public's safety when doing that, because you know lots of times offenders, they'll go out and reoffend before their first case is heard, or even overdose and die. So it's a tough decision judges have to make.
You know, I don't believe in a lengthy sentence or the death penalty with anybody with an addiction issue, but I certainly believe that being behind concrete is better than being buried beneath a tombstone.
Judges determine how the law is applied, and not what the law should be. How will you balance between being an independent judge who rules on what the law is, and an elected official who has a responsibility to your voters?
Well, that's interesting. It's difficult to say. I know how to read a sentence, and I've been in a lot of cases where you get into an argument about how a sentence should be interpreted, and I feel like I have a strong grasp about how a sentence should be interpreted by a judge.
And typically, the General Assembly, when they do write their statutes, they're not that difficult to understand.
I don't think it would be difficult for me to read the General Statutes and interpret it the way the General Assembly intended for it to be interpreted. I don't think that would be an issue for me.
Well, typically, if you're in court, a judge can have two roles. If a judge is presiding over a trial in district court, a criminal trial, the judge will be the finder of fact, and then the judge will have to interpret the law, and then apply the facts that he found from hearing the evidence to the law.
If elected, my responsibility to the citizens is I'd have to listen to the facts of the case, and determine exactly what happened. And then from that, I would apply the law to what I've heard.
What is a bias/prejudice that you currently struggle with? How do you work to overcome that prejudice?
I have represented some criminal defendants in my lifetime, and I don't agree with some of the things the state has alleged that they have done.
But still, I have to put that behind me and do the best that I possibly can to represent their interests. When an attorney does that, they're bound by the rules of professional conduct.
You have to be truthful to the court. If they know their client's lying, they can't allow that to continue.
So there's a lot to go into it, but you know, it's easy to do the right thing. It's just difficult when you do the wrong thing.
What is a quality you have seen in a judge that you would seek not to emulate on the bench?
Not knowing the law, or not taking the time to look it up, because if a judge makes the wrong decision, that is very costly.
That, and impatience. I believe most judges do their best to be patient and courteous to all the people that come before them.
So that I would emulate. I would make sure I would listen carefully. I'd make sure I know the law, and if I didn't, I'd look it up. And those two things, I would make sure I was on point with.
What is the biggest mistake you have made in your career? How would you seek to avoid it on the bench?
The biggest one. Well, I cannot get into any specific case. I'm bound by the rules of professional conduct. I have confidentiality concerns, and I wouldn't want anybody listening to feel bad.
But probably when I was younger, taking on cases that I shouldn't have — that that's probably the biggest mistake-is just taking on the wrong cases.
But it could have been a learning experience, but it was probably a big mistake also to take some cases that I did.
How will you handle conflicts of interest on the bench?
I was with a firm for four years, but after that, I've been on my own for 20, and I have a database of all those cases that I've worked on.
If any of those cases popped up again, I couldn't handle any of those matters. If I had a family member that was involved in a case, I could not hear that case.
If I had a financial interest in a case, I certainly couldn't hear that case either.
Also, if I had a bias, like if I just had a strong opinion about a matter, I'd have to recuse myself if in that situation.
And I believe there's other situations where a judge has to recuse themselves, but I believe I covered the majority of the conflicts of interest.
How do you define injustice? How will you deal with injustice when you confront it in your courtroom?
If you're talking about injustice, I believe you would be referring to some sort of state action or an action by a judge that is wrong.
So you know, a lot of times a party will sue the state, or the state will arrest a defendant, and you know, like I said, a district court judge, if they're presiding over a criminal trial, they have two roles.
As one, they have to find the facts to see what happened, and then apply those facts to the law. And you know, if the state's wrong, I wouldn't have a problem, you know, ruling for the citizen or whichever entity is up against the state, and then again, if the citizen is wrong, you know I certainly would find in the state's favor.
I'm glad you're not asking me about specific facts because I can't really tell you what I'd do in any given situation. But if there was an injustice like that, I'd have to find the facts and apply it to the law.
How do you ensure impartiality in your judicial decisions for people of all backgrounds in your courtroom?
I don't believe I have a bias against any sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, or anything like that.
I've been in that courthouse for 24 years. I've seen a lot. I've represented a lot of people, and I don't believe I've treated anyone any differently than I've treated anyone else.
Now I can say this: some people have better cases than others, but other than that, I believe I have treated everybody the exact same. I don't expect that to discontinue if I am elected to the bench.